I agree with you, but do you know that there are at least 7 countries right now where capital punishment is a possible penalty for same-sex sexual conduct[1]? And this number does not necessarily go down, for example Uganda introduced death pentalty for (aggravated) homosequality in 2023.
[1]And 5 more countries where the law regarding death penalty for homosequality is unclear.
Remember Indonesia is an overwhelmingly Islamic nation - in fact the largest one by population. Blasphemy is illegal. Even complaining about the volume of speakers playing the call to prayer for Muslims will get you arrested. Some areas like Aceh explicitly follow Islamic law (like with sharia courts). The country’s beliefs and attitudes towards things like LGB are deeply influenced by Islam. So it isn’t really surprising even though it’s appalling.
If you are trying to imply that the issue is precipitated by Islam, it’s important to note the beliefs and attitudes that you are mentioning are not endemic to Islam.
The primary negative effect I felt as a gay man came from the preacher, who felt the need to respond to news about LGBTQIA topics and remind the congregation that I basically wasn't allowed to exist. I had to hide this aspect of myself and pretend to be straight so my Dad (a teacher and a youth minister, in an era where I wasn't legally allowed to exist either) wouldn't lose his job.
Once I was able to leave home, and the law was adjusted, and I finally called my Dad to tell him I had my first real crush and was about to ask someone out, he was nothing but supportive and a great weight was lifted. Finally, I didn't have to lie to everyone I knew all the time. I could just be honest.
At no time during any of that was I ever truly straight. But I've learned to wear that mask when required. My aspect didn't cause me to take up drugs, or sleep around, or stay in abusive relationships just because I'd finally found the right orientation in a partner. Indeed, I'm currently single and pursuing a career in computer science, because that's a bit more interesting. The only thing "coming out" changed was allowing me to stop lying all the time. I was just able to finally be me.
That's it. That's all I ever wanted: to stop pretending to be something I'm not.
What sort of "alternative lifestyles" are you referring to, and what are the negative effects of them? What are some "traditional lifestyles", and how might you suggest they be promoted?
The whole GNOME desktop for one. All of a sudden it seems like every PC became a tablet.
> what are the negative effects of them?
Loss of features and the rich control and customization normally afforded by a desktop computing experience. You know, the things that made it better than a tablet experience.
> What are some "traditional lifestyles"
Using KDE or Windows, where the minimize button never went away, where you have a taskbar with a tray, which shows you little tray programs that often have no durable windows outside of their tray menu -- not should they need to. Not trying to hack functionality back in via extensions that break so often that it feels like they're meant to condition you into not trying to change some Apple fanboy's Design Philosophy. My phone originally autocorrected that to Pathology, and I shouldn't have changed it.
> and how might you suggest they be promoted?
No promotion is needed, things will balance out as people realize how bad GNOME and GTK are. Projects are switching to Qt, not away from it, and KDE's market share is often reported as big as or bigger than GNOME's despite GNOME being the default in all the big distros whereas KDE is something people have to seek out on their own.
I am also not transgender. I find it interesting that some population of people invariably write off as a “fad”, trend, affectation, acting, or what-have-you, a population that has gained greater visibility than they previously had.
We have been seeing that same pattern for awhile now, particularly as people learn that the spectrum of identity and expression doesn’t end with “just” being gay.
I agree it makes no sense. Nothing about being transgender looks remotely enjoyable or trendy. Hard to imagine someone would just go along with it for fun.
The only thing I am skeptical of is those who are looking to increasingly subdivide gender identities into finer and finer niches, but in a way that nevertheless has no impact on their lives whatsoever. That's a whole lot of distinctions without differences to me, but that does not apply with transgenderism.
> Nothing about being transgender looks remotely enjoyable or trendy. Hard to imagine someone would just go along with it for fun.
This just sounds like you haven't encountered what they're referring to. For an introduction, check out some of the definitions on here: https://nonbinary.wiki/wiki/List_of_nonbinary_identities (and this list isn't anywhere close to compete compared to some I've seen in the past, just the easiest to find with a quick search)
Many of these also come with special pronouns you're supposed to use instead of him/her, to the point where even the nonspecific "they" is considered offensive.
It is absolutely a fad thing among the left in the US.
I have friends who are trans, they are not doing it to hop on a trend or as a lark. Like pundits often say, it often comes with difficult medical procedures or at the very least a lot of social problems. And unlike pundits usually say, getting medication is extremely difficult and degrading and can take years. And for all the ones I know, none of them have regretted it, and if anything say they wished they could have transitioned sooner. I can't say I get what it feels like to be living as the wrong gender but if its worth putting up with as much as they do to change its gotta be bad.
To your point - Yes there are people who will get offended at the wrong "they" because they'd prefer other neopronouns, but every person I know who uses those are very forgiving as long as it seems like you're not actively trying to misgender them. Mistakes happen constantly and every reasonable person respects that. I'm sure you can find people on the internet with bad takes or being obnoxious or cringe about it but you can find that with anything.
& Yes that list is super detailed and I'm willing to admit I find some of them kinda weird, but people are weird about a lot of things and to be honest why should this be something to care about in particular. Even the stuff I truely cannot understand, like otherkin or plural, who is that hurting?
> I have friends who are trans, they are not doing it to hop on a trend or as a lark. Like pundits often say, it often comes with difficult medical procedures or at the very least a lot of social problems.
Which confirms you're not talking about the same group as the other person and me. The derogatory term is "transtrender"; they're claiming the label "trans" for social clout and don't have any of the issues you're talking about because they don't have any body dysphoria and have no intention of actually transitioning.
To quote one of my former co-workers who was like this, "everyone should be trans, it's fun".
I don't doubt there are some people like that BUT -
1. Given how difficult the medical side is (something the anti-trans people like to call out all the time as 'multilation'), I don't think we should be looking down on trans people who haven't done anything medically
& 2. Even if this group does exist, what's the point of bringing it up, especially here in this thread? It reads as being opposed to trans rights altogether because 'they're all faking it for clout' which just isn't true at all.
&& 3. Even for those you'd call 'transtrenders', is it really so bad to want to dress differently and get a new name? It's not that hard to accommodate and doesn't hurt anyone.
> is it really so bad to want to dress differently and get a new name? It's not that hard to accommodate and doesn't hurt anyone.
If it was just about dressing differently and changing one's name, almost no-one would care.
The main problem that has drawn such attention to this topic in the past few years is that of males demanding and being granted access to female spaces, on the basis of their self-declared "gender identity". This has harmed women and girls. In prisons, female prisoners being sexually assaulted, raped, impregnated by male inmates transferred to the women's prisons. In sports, female athletes being pushed out of their own competitions by males, and for contact sports, serious injuries from these males. Women and girls being indecently exposed to by males who've been allowed into locker rooms, changing rooms, nude spas, and similar places of undress.
Basically, male desires are being given more importance than the needs of women and girls. And feminists who speak out on this get harassed, threatened, assaulted by angry males who can't bear to be told "no".
The other hugely controversial issue is the provision of "gender affirming care" to children. Breast removal for girls who want to be boys, some as young as 12. Castration and penis surgery for boys who want to be girls, the youngest recorded being 16 years old. The harms from puberty blocking drugs. With an increasing number of detransitioners now speaking up against all this too.
People don't just hold "anti-trans" views for no reason. It's because the ideology behind it has such harmful effects on women and children when it's implemented in the real world.
Well they are male, just like any other male. How a person dresses or is named doesn't change their sex. It really doesn't matter what someone wears or what they call themselves.
Hence the issue with (most of) this subset of males demanding to use female spaces. These spaces aren't for them.
I mean that's the question, right? Because while sex is biological (and there are biologically intersex people) gender is cultural & down to presentation. It's how its easy to imagine a boyish girl or vice versa. Nothing there is precisely defined.
For almost everything, gender is what matters. People make a fuss about drag queens and effeminate men and shemales and all sorts of things that are purely gender expression.
To the point where yeah, there are Some rare cases where biological gender is important, mostly in medicine, but most of the time its gender that we see and care about.
What the trans people I know want is to be recognized as having the gender that fits with them. You wouldn't call a cis woman a 'female' in normal conversation, so why call trans-women 'males' when there's already two good ways to refer to them,
'trans women' when it matters or 'women' when it doesn't.
But you seem to refuse to do that. So rather than debunk the "dangers of the scary transexual pervert" myth (when in actuality the more common violence happens to the trans people) I instead ask if that's really the only problem you have with trans people.
Are you actually willing to recognize that they feel as strongly as their chosen gender as you do with your own, and that it hurts them to be demonized and misunderstood by society. Because I will admit that there Is some discussion, especially around sports, but the vast majority of time thats trotted out the underlying reason isn't some theoretical virtue of fairness but instead a rejection of the possibility of changing ones gender altogether.
> What the trans people I know want is to be recognized as having the gender that fits with them. You wouldn't call a cis woman a 'female' in normal conversation, so why call trans-women 'males' when there's already two good ways to refer to them, 'trans women' when it matters or 'women' when it doesn't.
> But you seem to refuse to do that.
I don't understand why I am expected to partake in their delusion.
I'm not sure if this is strawman or motte-and-bailey (leaning towards the latter), but you are continuing to ignore the group of people we're talking about and are instead only referring to a different and much easier to defend group that we're not talking about.
If I understand the conversation correctly, you have been talking about "transtrender", ie. people who do not experience body dysmorphia, or at least not diagnosably, and yet still want to be treated the same as other 'legitimate' trans people. Kinda saying that if you aren't really willing to go through what it takes to Actually become trans (medically) then you're just following a trend.
I think I replied to that as best I could with three points as to why I don't think doing that is harmful to anyone.
Green Badger brought out the standard trifecta of anti-trans gotchas, including ones about how horrible it is that people are getting surgeries, so it's clear they're not talking about transtrenders like you were. My response to that (imo mostly unrelated) comment wasn't even an argument as much as trying to point out that focusing on these issues is a distraction from the underlying point that they just don't seem to believe a person can be trans at all.
Anyways, if you have a specific argument or question I'm happy to try to answer if but I think I've said all I can, and if that's not good enough, I'm sorry.
Only bothering to say it at all to try to make the world a little bit nicer and safer for my friends in Florida rn who are dealing with a Lot from the government
Or in other words: rigid, reductive ideas of what it means to be female versus male.
What the trans activist movement has done is redefine "woman" as being someone who identifies with sexist stereotypes about women, "man" as someone who identifies with stereotypes about men, and so on. While also claiming that everyone has an identity that aligns with sexist stereotypes and this is more important than sex.
It's just the same sexism that social conservatives champion, but modified so that instead of saying that women (female) and men (male) have to conform to cultural stereotypes of each sex, they are instead defined by these sexist stereotypes regardless of sex. From "women should wear dresses and makeup" to "the people who want to wear dresses and makeup are women".
And on the back of this misogynistic nonsense, insisting that single-sex spaces should be reorganized on this basis. Then getting this implemented in law and policy.
> so why call trans-women 'males'
Firstly because males in female spaces is the actual contentious issue. Secondly because it was an attempt to avoid a prolonged discussion of arguing if "woman" means adult female of the human species, which is the common understanding, or whether "woman" is the word used to describe anyone who identifies with the set of sexist stereotypes that are typically imposed upon female individuals. Thirdly to avoid being sidetracked by complaints of "misgendering" if I refer to them as men.
> Are you actually willing to recognize that they feel as strongly as their chosen gender as you do with your own
I'm willing to recognize that some males have an obsessive desire to be women, one that is based upon their male gaze perspective of women. This does not somehow transform them into women, and there is no good reason why actual women and girls should be expected to accommodate these males who desire to be women in female spaces.
> and that it hurts them to be demonized and misunderstood by society
Then let them take the first step towards avoiding this, by taking responsibility for their actions and voluntarily refraining from any attempt to use spaces designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.
Also- it's not only trans people who feel strongly about their gender and wish their body fit it more. Cis men often wish their voices were deeper, or they had a more chiseled jawline. These are stereotypes just as much as anything else.
Cis woman get breast enhancement surgery for gender affirming reasons! It makes them feel good! But when trans women get the same exact thing, or a trans man gets chest reduction surgery, people say it's mutilation. Its the same thing for the same reason!!
Exactly. In the same way that 12 year old girls shouldn't be getting breast implants because they want to fit some toxic stereotypes associated with being female, they also shouldn't be getting breast removal because they think this somehow transforms them towards being male. It's all harmful nonsense.
All of these damaging stereotypes and unhealthy body ideals should be challenged. Instead, the trans activist movement has taken this set of regressive ideals and asserted that this is what women and men actually are. But instead of stating this directly, they obfuscate it behind "gender identity". It's ludicrous.
Here's my opinion on gender, as someone who isn't trans, and truthfully doesn't care about gender that much myself tbh:
I feel like everyone has their own idea of what it feels like to be them, how they want to present, whether their body feels comfortable and correct, how they like the sound of their voice etc.
So in that sense, it's not either: You are a woman because of biology, therefore you are (stereotypes) or the alternative you mentioned: You are (stereotypes) therefore you are a woman, but instead: I am a woman (as I define it for myself) and would like to be treated as such by the world (ie. using preferred pronouns) .
For some trans people I know, 'passing' as the other gender feels great, like they're they're finally seen as who they want to be, and for some I know, passing isnt the point. They have their own definition of their gender, one I know is on HRT but prefers to be referred to with "they/them" since they dont feel like either gender fits them.
FWIW - I agree that there's tons of stereotypes, many are very obviously harmful "a woman can't be a doctor" and many are harmful by undermining their view of themselves "a woman must wear dresses" or "a woman must be gentle", but I don't really connect what this has to do with trans people. What you're saying is basically: "a woman must have been born biologically female" and I don't really see what adding that restriction helps with.
> I'm willing to recognize that some males have an obsessive desire to be women, one that is based upon their male gaze perspective of women. This does not somehow transform them into women, and there is no good reason why actual women and girls should be expected to accommodate these males who desire to be women in female spaces.
The point is not to sneak into women's spaces, the point is that this is how they feel about themselves. They want to be a woman in every space. It means a lot to them and is an easy accommodation (just call them their preferred pronoun an honorific)
To your point on biological-women's-only spaces, this is imo. a distraction. Anti-trans people like to act like this is their one concern, and they just care about the safety of woman who might be assaulted by perverts in places where they should be safe etc.
But this is in absolutely no way the only thing anti-trans people are doing. Medical care like HRT is being restricted in lots of states, and is likely to happen federally. Places like Florida make it a crime for teachers to state their own preferred pronouns to their class. Drag shows are being banned (literally just makeup). The point is clearly to criminalize and stigmatize the idea of being trans.
And I'll ask you this: I have a trans friend who is small, has been taking HRT long enough to have all the biological markers of a woman, dresses like a woman, calls themselves a woman, has female hormones etc. should be exclusively in biologically male spaces? And while my trans masc friends happen to be more androgynous, you'd prefer for women's only spaces to feature people who look like this? https://cdn2.atlantamagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/...
I see the "non-binary" concept as the result of people holding the belief that being a woman or a man isn't about one's sex, but this supposed inner feeling of "gender identity" that, as discussed above, can't really be explained or understood except by reference to sex stereotypes. It's the identity of the gap left between both these exaggerations of masculinity and femininity.
That's also why calling oneself "non-binary" is most prevalent amongst the youngest generation as so many of them were taught the ideology of "gender identity" as if it's fact, and internalized this.
> So in that sense, it's not either: You are a woman because of biology, therefore you are (stereotypes) or the alternative you mentioned: You are (stereotypes) therefore you are a woman, but instead: I am a woman (as I define it for myself) and would like to be treated as such by the world (ie. using preferred pronouns).
That makes even less sense. If, by this redefinition, being a woman or a man isn't about material biological reality (sex), or about identifying with a set of sexist stereotypes, then there's literally nothing left but an empty declaration. It renders the categories of woman and man entirely meaningless.
> The point is not to sneak into women's spaces, the point is that this is how they feel about themselves. They want to be a woman in every space.
This just shows even more so that "gender identity" is being used as a flimsy excuse by males demanding access to female spaces. It is apparently meaningless and undefinable, but also supposedly crucial enough to trash all safeguarding policies and principles.
for your 2nd point - I don't think it's about _sexist_ stereotypes, but it Is about communicating yourself to society, which has certain ideas. For something less charged than gender, say you call yourself a "hippie" or a "conservative" or a "goth" or a "hacker" or anything else. This immediately evokes associations with other people (stereotypes) that are - to some degree but not completely - correct which is why you chose to use that word to describe yourself. This is just how communicating _any_ identity works, I don't think gender is inherently different in any way other than society cares about it a lot more.
& For your last point: I really think you're super hung up on this spaces thing. None of my trans friends says this is why they did it. They just want to feel comfortable. I clarified in my last post why I think that this is the wrong take, but honestly, if you're OK with using people's preferred pronouns, don't want to ban HRT, etc., I'm OK agreeing to disagree on this
> Society has to find a way to promote traditional lifestyles
Why?
If those lifestyles are so superior why do they need promotion? It's almost like people are not some homogenous blob, but individuals with their own wants and desires.
To be devils advocate here we also have to promote healthy eating, getting screened for cancer, or smoking PSAs. Just because something might be classified as "superior" doesn't mean that it will always self promote or be accessible.
Further, if we engage with the likely meaning here, I would also pose the question: why do we need to promote a “lifestyle” at all.
If being straight is an inherent trait that isn’t a choice, surely promotion is pointless. If it is a choice then the question still stands. If sexual orientation is chosen, what difference would it make what someone chooses in the first place? They have a right to determine that for themselves.
But of course sexual orientation isn’t a choice, so promoting heterosexuality seems like it would be little more than a “the majority of us exist!” marketing campaign. Which seems bizarre to me.
Yeah, I was confused by the same thing. It is one thing to promote drugs/alcohol/etc., but what does “traditional lifestyle” even mean.
I have a strong feeling that the answer to this will heavily depend on the region. And for countries that already have similar legislation (which is mostly just various flavors of religious states for now), I will just say, I neither vibe with their idea of “traditional” (women not being able to drive a car or walk in public without a male chaperone, stiffling freedom of speech because badmouthing the politicians and higherups, etc.) nor would want to live there for plenty of practical reasons beyond that. And for non-theocratical states, we got Russia with their prison sentences for “promoting alternative homosexualism lifestyles” (with “promoting” including just silly stuff like displaying the pride flag or posting a pro-lgbtq tweet).
All of those things are done in favor of “promoting traditional lifestyles” (or in favor of “discouraging ‘harmful’ non-traditional lifestyles”, depending on what those governments feel like going with on a particular day). And all I can say is that those places just seem like they would be plain sucky to live in[0] for many reasons beyond that, with their “traditional lifestyle”-related legislation being just a symptom of the larger incompetence and idiocy.
0. Had about 15 years of experience formerly living in one of those places, and can confirm that it sucks beyond belief. And it wasn’t even that bad compared to other more religious and authoritarian places.
I like how the presumably straight sibling comments don't seem to know what the "alternative lifestyles" dog whistle means in context here. There is a long history of saying being lgbt is a lifestyle choice.
I'm genuinely fascinated by what negative effects you perceive of people who are gay, trans, ace being able to live their lives openly instead of being forced to pretend otherwise and ultimately failing at it.
What is gained by society by forcing a lesbian into a straight marriage? You've just created a sexless marriage with extra steps.
We all know what the "traditional lifestyles" means and that the OP is clearly anti-LGBT but we have to pretend that we don't know what it means and ask them to explain.
>What is gained by society by forcing a lesbian into a straight marriage? You've just created a sexless marriage with extra steps.
I think the point is than in Islam women have no choice but to sex with their husbands without a "good reason". For men it is marginally less obliged, but still expected that they should have sex with their women (though it is not as explicitly urgent, it seems, as for women to spread their legs when required).
Still, having sex with someone who's not really into it sounds fairly unappealing to me.
> I like how the presumably straight sibling comments don't seem to know what the "alternative lifestyles" dog whistle means in context here. There is a long history of saying being lgbt is a lifestyle choice.
I'm pretty sure we all knew that. It's just funnier to get them to say it themselves. Also I aint straight.
Being a nutcase means certain rules don't apply, and others do. Being in power offers the opportunity to apply this discordant world-view on nonadherants.
The solution is regulation. Human rights, formal ones.
International regulation simply can't work, especially for these types of issues. No one will go to war to impose human rights on another nation, and even if they did, it would hurt both populations much, much, much, much more than the peace time violations of human rights. War is hell, so it can only ever be a weapon of last resort.
Even economic sanctions have a very poor track record of effecting any kind of change in a society or regime - they typically only hurt the poor, which minority groups who you are trying to help often are.
In the extreme, extending refuge to minorities fleeing the oppressive regime. More long term, advocacy, both diplomatic and popular, for the cause of said minorities. Material and moral support for local movements doing the same. The gay pride movement is an excellent example.
Ultimately, if a society doesn't adjust its views to accept its members, there's very little you can do. The only thing that works is convincing that society that it should change. Sanctions or wars won't get parents to accept their gays sons or daughters, even if they miraculously succeeded in changing some laws.
I'm all for countries and populations determining their own norms and cultures to a large degree, but that's outrageous; it's 2024.